Michael Hoffman's Note: The American media stink. I'm not apologizing for using a crude term to describe the "journalism" of the NBC and CBS television affiliates in Sacramento and the Sacramento Bee newspaper, or most of the other "mainstream" media in the U.S. Their reporting of the truly dissident and marginal is usually a disgrace. Here is the latest egregious example, highlighted by retired Army officer Archer Frey, who commanded troops during the 1965 Watts Riots in Los Angeles.(Michael Hoffman is a former reporter for the Associated Press).

On 27 February 2012, the popular 4:00 p.m. Dr. Oz medical information television show was interrupted to transmit live pictures of a near riot occurring at the California State Capitol building in Sacramento, California. The local NBC-TV affiliate showed police under siege, using horse-mounted California Highway Patrol officers and Sacramento City motorcycle police officers, in attempting to suppress a riot brought on by the activities, so the media outlet said of a “White Supremacists” group activity.

Both the NBC and the CBS stations fed live pictures and later taped segments at the 5 o’clock and 10 o’clock news. In their voice over narration both NBC and CBS repeatedly use the term “White Supremacists”. While there were some short acknowledgments (no amplification), that the South African Project Group had valid permits, and a mob from the “Occupy Oakland” movement was attacking the South African group, both MSM outlets made it clear that the problem was with the South African group for being there in the first place. Both MSM repeatedly use the statement “White Supremacists.” The authors of the Sacramento Bee article used the white supremacists canard only once, but put it into a form of denial, reporting; “The South Africa Project protesters denied they are white supremacists.” However the Bee could not resist one last jab in the picture description calling the South Africa Project group a “pro-white group.”

So much for objectivity.

While Californians are aware of the distances involved, those outside of the state are not aware that Oakland is over 80 miles from Sacramento. (For comparison New York City is a little over 90 miles from Philadelphia.) So to move a group of some 100 people, headcount underestimated, or inflated, depending on your goal for media impact, some eighty miles takes a good amount of coordination. No MSM or the Sacramento Bee article, see below, mention this fact.

The near riot closed downtown Sacramento and the Capitol from around 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon until nearly 6:00 p.m., stopping traffic and closing off entire city blocks, yet the Bee relegated their article to page 3. It took the paper some 228 words of a 676 word construction, or one-third of the article, to inform the reader that the South African group had a permit. Nor were viewers and readers reprised of the violence in Oaklandcaused by the “Occupy Oakland” element, including the January 28, 2012 incident where police had to resort to the use of tear gas. The MSM and the Huffington Post all reported that the core element of the Oakland trouble resulted from some 100 individuals that refused a lawful order to disperse.

One wonders if the 100 or so in Sacramento might be this same 100 strong element? As an aside, this Oakland use of tear gas was the first time that I recall its large scale California use since the “People’s Park” Berkeley riots of 1967. Notice that the media emphasis is on the harm to the police. No mention, let alone expanded coverage, of what happen to the group assembling legally, except, “the counter-protesters hurled bottles, rocks and paint-filled eggs at the officers and those they were protecting …”

But the bigger problem is in the application, or in this case, the non-application of the 2000 era, ADL, (Anti-Defamation League) instituted “hate crime” laws.

The call for investigation and the potential for “special circumstances” and “hate crime” conditions is totally absent. If you are not part of an identified “victim” group you have no special circumstances to wrap around your rights. A mob can attack your authorized, permitted, constitutionally protected assembly and those attacked are just supposed to “suck it up” and let it go.

Truly, we are now under the control of malevolent forces.

Archer C. Frey is a retired US Army member. His service to the State of California and the United States extended over the period 1945 to 1991. In 1965,during the Watts Riots, Frey commanded a 500 man National Guard force in South Los Angeles. Frey’s earliest US ancestors arrived in Massachusetts Bay in 1635.

________________________________

Two officers injured, three arrested as protesters clash near state Capitol

[Archer Frey's Note: No mention in the following newspaper report of any injuries or harm done to the peacefully assembled, law-abiding group that was violently attacked by the hate-filed mob]

A mini-melee broke out near the state Capitol on Monday, with at least two officers injured and three people arrested, after Occupy Oakland protesters and others hurled objects at police and at a group claiming thousands of whites have been killed by blacks in South Africa. The protest by South Africa Project began relatively calmly. At noon, members took up position on the Capitol’s south steps for a three-hour protest of what they called “White Genocide in South Africa.” Their literature claims that as of December, more than 3,000 white farmers of European origin had been murdered in South Africa in racially motivated attacks.

Meanwhile, a multiethnic group of about 100 protesters was separated from them by police officers on horses. Those protesters chanted: “Hey, hey. Ho, ho. You Nazi f---s have got to go.

”

The South Africa Project protesters denied they are white supremacists. “For some reason, when a white person tries to stick up for an issue based on race, they’re automatically labeled racist, neo-Nazi Klan members,” said coordinator Michael Myers, an electrician from Oakland.

The group’s website, which later proclaimed the demonstration a success, chided “those of you who call yourselves White Nationalists” who didn’t participate.

At times the protesters and counter-protesters shouted back and forth, said California Highway Patrol spokesman Sean Kennedy. “I heard yelling from both sides,” he said. “It was mutual.”

The South Africa group had a permit to protest on the Capitol steps, but the others did not and so couldn’t go on the Capitol grounds. They yelled from the sidewalk. At 3 p.m., extra CHP and Sacramento police officers were called in to escort the South Africa protesters from the Capitol to a parking garage at 10th and L streets.

The officers kept the counter-protesters – including those who arrived later marching under a banner that said “Occupy Oakland” – on the opposite side of the street. Some wore dark bandanas over their faces.

“It’s the wild, wild West, motherf-----s,” they chanted. “The system is racist, you are all disgraces.”

As both groups approached the parking garage, the counter-protesters hurled bottles, rocks and paint-filled eggs at the officers and those they were protecting, according to Kennedy and Sacramento Police spokeswoman Laura Peck.

One CHP officer, sitting on a large draft horse, rode into the crowd of counter-protesters while other officers tried to apprehend those they suspected of throwing objects. The group scattered, with police in pursuit. One CHP bicycle officer chased down and tackled a fleeing suspect, but he appeared to be injured after the man was handcuffed and taken away. Sitting on the sidewalk, the officer had blood on his chin and pointed to his knee, as if to indicate he was hurt. Another CHP officer held his hands over his face while colleagues put their hands on his shoulders. An ambulance driver said the officer had been pepper sprayed.

Kennedy said Monday evening that at least two CHP officers suffered minor injuries and at least three counter-protesters were arrested by the CHP for resisting arrest. Another counter-protester was arrested earlier in the day, he said. Peck said no Sacramento police officers were injured, though some were doused with paint. The ruckus drew a heavy police reponse. It snarled traffic and disrupted service on light rail’s Blue Line from 3 to 4:30 p.m., a Regional Transit spokeswoman said.

As news of the event spread, organizers of Occupy Sacramento said in a statement they were not involved. “Occupy Sacramento adheres to a strict nonviolence policy,” the statement said. “We do not fight police, even if they are the perpetrators of violence, as they have been at Occupy demonstrations.” One Occupy Sacramento protester at the scene, who goes by the name of Faygo, said it was after the Occupy Oakland protesters arrived that things got rowdy.

“I can’t really blame Oakland,” he said. “They deal with a lot of police brutality, so a lot of them have a lot more animosity toward the police.

“It just takes one person to throw a stone,” he said, “and you’ve got chaos.”

A California Highway Patrol bicycle officer sits injured on a sidewalk near the state Capitol in Sacramento on Monday after tackling a protester with the Occupy group that was taunting members of a pro-white group called the South Africa Project, which held a three-hour rally on the building’s south steps.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Mrs. Clinton’s hypocritical rant against Syria, Russia and China:

she had no similar outrage when Israelis massacred Palestinians 2008-2009

Manufactured Disgust and Imperial Cynicism

by Ben Schreiner / February 27th, 2012

Since failing to win United Nations Security Council backing for “regime change” in Syria, Washington and its lackeys in the corporate media have been unrelenting in voicing their great moral outrage at both the violence of the Assad regime and the seeming indifference to it all by the likes of Russia and China. Washington is no doubt long in forgetting those that thwart the will of the “international community.” After all, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated, the “travesty” of the Russian and Chinese veto left the entire Security Council “neutered.”

Given this, it was of little surprise to see Ms. Clinton mount her soapbox once more last week in Tunis at the meeting of the so-called “friends of Syria.” As Ms. Clinton moralized Friday:

It’s quite distressing to see two permanent members of the Security Council using their veto when people are being murdered, women, children, brave young men. Houses are being destroyed. It is just despicable. And I ask, whose side are they on? They are clearly not on the side of the Syrian people.

Clinton’s remarks won swift and high praise from the American punditry. On the PBS Newshour, Mark Shields swooned over Clinton’s performance. As he commented, “It was impassioned. It was eloquent. It was really, I thought, quite moving.” David Brooks likewise fawned, “The reaction was something I think we should be proud of, clearly a lot of passion, a lot of directness.”

The New York Times, meanwhile, also weighted in on the Syrian crisis with a Friday editorial (titled “Syria’s Horrors“). As the paper argued, “The United States and Europe need to use all their powers of persuasion and shaming to get Moscow and Beijing to cut all ties [with Syria].” In an editorial published just a week prior (titled “The Enablers“), the Times called on Russia and China to finally “meet the test of leadership” by “standing against Mr. Assad’s siege on his people.” Little doubt, then, that the Times also took heart in Clinton’s Tunis show.

But least one think the violence gripping Syria really moves such pillars of the U.S. liberal establishment like the New York Times and Ms. Clinton, let us briefly recall how the both responded to Operation Cast Lead. That is, Israel’s 23-day assault on the Gaza strip in late 2008, early 2009. The Israeli assault—or more properly, war crime—left a total of 1,385 Palestinians dead, 318 of which were under the age of 18. (5,300 more Palestinians were also wounded.)

So, as Israel slaughtered Palestinians in Gaza, did Ms. Clinton deride the distressing murder of women and children? Did she bemoan a “neutered” Security Council unable to respond? No. Instead, just the same as then President-elect Obama, Ms. Clinton hid behind the notion that “there is only one secretary of state.” Not that she would have acted any differently had she been actively serving as secretary of state.

But how about the Times? Did the paper of record lament the horrors unfolding in Gaza? Did it call on the U.S. to meet the test of leadership and stand against the Israel siege of Gaza? No. In fact, in the midst of the slaughter, the Times boldly editorialized, “Israel must defend itself.” Then to perhaps demonstrate their “humanity,” the editorial board cautiously affirmed that, “Israel must make every effort to limit civilian casualties.” The Israeli motive behind its attack on Gaza, of course, was beyond rebuke for the Times.

The great anxiety presently on prominent display by the U.S. liberal establishment over the violence in Syria is then nothing but a public show of manufactured disgust. Such displays of outrage by the likes of Ms. Clinton and the New York Times are really little more than cynical ploys veiling imperial aims.

In fact, a recent Times op-ed by former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy, arguing that the ouster of Assad would lead to a strategic defeat of Iran, encapsulates the real motives behind all such contrived outrage. As Mr. Halevy wrote:

Getting Iran booted out of Syria is essential for Israel’s security. And if Mr. Assad goes, Iranian hegemony over Syria must go with him. Anything less would rob Mr. Assad’s departure of any significance.

He noted further, “The current standoff in Syria presents a rare chance to rid the world of the Iranian menace to international security and well-being.”

Now, without a doubt, the Syrian people have every right to resist despotic rule. But they would be wise to give pause to their purported “friends” residing amongst the U.S. liberal elite who employ such imperial cynicism.

The appearance of Mr. Schreiner's essay here does not constitute or imply his endorsement of the views expressed in On the Contrary.

___________________________________________________________________

Read, distribute, review and publicize Judaism's Strange Godsby Michael Hoffman. This is the best book on Judaism for educating people about the hidden side of a much glorified, but soul-destroying religion of warfare and deception. Don't let this high-power ammunition go to waste! Most Christians have never heard of this outstanding book.Win the war of ideas with Judaism's Strange Gods! Our children's future depends upon it. Quality paperback. Illustrated. 381 pages. $17.95 plus shipping.

Or, for USA orders, send a US check or money order for $21.00 postpaid for one book, or $37 postpaid for two books to: Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816. Idaho please add 6% tax.

Partial List of Contents: Principle Sources of the Divine Law of the Religion of Orthodox Judaism; The Rabbinic Eras; Rabbinic Law vs. Biblical Law; Judaism's Attack On The Biblical Prophets And Patriarchs; The Talmud: Only a Record of Debates?; "The Babylonian Talmud Represents God in the Flesh"; Judaism's Hermeneutic of Concealment in Theory and Practice; The Tarnish on Hillel's Golden Rule; A Gigantic Heap of Self-Perpetuating Legal and Textual Arcana; Falsifying Scripture with Gezera Shava; "A Hedge Around the Law"; Loopholes And Escape Clauses; "The Pious of the Nations" Loophole; Four Exegetical Categories: PaRDeS; Outright Lies and Deception; Permissible Categories of Lying; The Deceiver's Gloss on Exodus 23:7; Why Women Have Not Been Allowed to Study the Talmud; Bribery; Defrauding Workers; The Authority of the Talmud; The Inferiority of Gentiles; Gentile is not a Brother or a Neighbor; Jews May Kill Non-Jews; Torat Hamelech: Warrant For The Murder Of Gentiles; The Status of the Gentile in Jewish Law; Non-Jews are "Supernal Refuse"; The Halachos of Manslaughter: "Lifting and Lowering"; Judaism Teaches: Abraham & Isaac were Tainted with Lust; Rabbinic Texts are a Virulent Source of Anti-Black Racism; Every Gentile's Mother, Daughter and Sister: NShGZ; New World Order: U.S. Government Lays The Groundwork For Talmudic Courts; Christians in the Talmud; Escape Clauses and Loopholes Concerning the Rabbinic Ban on Churches; Talmud Citations Concerning Christianity; Balaam: The Talmud's Code Name for Jesus; Christianity Alleged to be a Form of Prostitution; Mary the Mother of Jesus as "Sedata" (a promiscuous woman); Establishing a Legal Principle for Courtroom Entrapment of Christ and Christians; Pandera and Balaam: Jesus as a Bastard in the Talmud; Origen Contra the Antichrist Rabbinic Calumnies of Celsus; Anti-Goyimitic and Anti-Christian Hatred; Divine Mandate to Kill Jesus Christ and Christians; Judaism's Reincarnation Dogma; Star of Bohemia, Not David; Kaparot: The Sin Chicken; The X-Rated Talmud; Judaism and Menstruation; Judaism and Abortion; Converts and Conversions to Judaism; Yom Kippur and the Kol Nidrei Nullification of Vows; Judaism's Holy Days; Birkat HaMinim: The Curse on Christians; Child Molestation and Homosexuality; Glossary; Index.

The enemies of Truth are extremely energetic and dedicated to their cause. What about us, we who say we are for the Truth? Have we matched their energy and dedication? Or do we wallow in apathy and inaction? The hour is late. Racist Talmudism rules America through Churchianity, the media, the Federal government, and powerful institutions such as the highly influential Cardozo School of Law, an affiliate of a Talmudic yeshiva --where future elite lawyers and judges are trained in rabbinic halacha. Let us go forward with Judaism's Strange Gods, and with God's help, engage in the war of ideas in accordance with His will. If Judaism's Strange Gods is not the best tool in this fight, please tell us what is. If, however, it is indeed the most effective book for educating the public concerning the toxic Talmudic Trojan horse in our midst which daily grows more powerful, to what degree have you utilized it?

Sunday, February 26, 2012

In this eight-minute video you will see Rabbi Smuley Boteach lose his cool as host Michael Coren dares to mention Zionist influence over Hollywood.

Boteach appeared on Mr. Coren’s televised talk-show “The Arena" to discuss his new book, Kosher Jesus, a sequel to his Kosher Sex volume.

Rabbi Boteach is an infiltrator into Christian ranks and poses as an ally. But in this video you will observe, for a few brief moments, the mask fall, as the real Rabbi Boteach spews hatred for Christians and Pope Pius XII.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

February, 2012: Prof. Faurisson, who has been prosecuted multiple times in France due to publishing his doubts over the existence of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz, receives a courage award in Tehran from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during the Iranian “Hollywoodism" conference on Zionist influence over Hollywood. Prof. Faurisson is on the right, holding the award. Ahamdinejad is to his left.

(Click on the British flag on the film's home page for English chapters and subtitles).

_____________________________________________________________

Iranian 'Conference on Hollywoodism and Cinema'

By: N. Maruani & A. Savyon

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6111.htm

On February 2, 2012, Tehran hosted the second "Conference on Hollywoodism and Cinema" as part of the 2012 Fajr International Film Festival. The conference was attended by 48 academics from the U.S., the U.K., France, Canada, Belgium, Greece, Spain, Tunisia, Italy, Egypt, Russia, Lebanon, Azerbaijan, and Palestine. As specified in the conference's final statement, it focused on Hollywood's purported role as "the most powerful tool of Zionism" in influencing world opinion according to the interests of the "American-Zionist military-industrial complex," while emphasizing Iran's "ability to be the center for producing elegant anti-Zionist films."The conference addressed five key points: "Narration in Hollywood," "[The] Role of Cinema in the World Awakening," "'The Role of Hollywoodism and Human Decadence," "Portrait of [the] Future in Hollywood," and "Hollywoodism and Zionism." Among the issues discussed at the conference were "Hollywood and Holocaust," "Palestine [i]n the Line of Fire," "Hollywood and Apocalypse," "Hollywood, Darwinism and Liberalism, and "Hollywood's Exploitation of World Events, Such as the Holocaust and 9/11, for the Sake of Zionist Policies.”

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, on February 2, 2012, claimed that the West and Zionism use Hollywood's film industry as a means to maintain their world domination, delivered the opening speech for the event, in which he called for a new world order. He also presented an award for "courage, strength, and force" to French revisionist Robert Faurisson, who attended the conference along with several other prominent French Holocaust deniers. Also present was son of Hollywood director Oliver Stone, who converted to Shi'ite Islam during his visit to Tehran.

President Ahmadinejad presented prominent French Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson with an award at the conference and met with him in private. Faurisson's latest paper, titled "Against Hollywoodism, Revisionism," which was likely the basis of his lecture at the conference, explains "Hollywoodism's part in creating the myth of 'the Holocaust'": "'The Holocaust' of the Jews became a sort of religion whose three main components are the extermination, the gas chambers, and the six million martyrs... After the war a whole propaganda developed around this holy trinity of 'the Holocaust', a whole industry of 'the Holocaust', a whole business: the 'Shoah Business.'" For the article in full, see Faurisson's Unofficial Blog. Following are comments posted on this blog regarding the international conference on Hollywoodism:

"On February 2, 2012, in tandem with the thirtieth International Fajr Film Festival in Tehran, President Ahmadinejad inaugurated an international conference on Hollywoodism… Amongst the participants at this conference were three anti-Zionist and anti-revisionist rabbis, respectively from Britain, the United States and Canada, along with some other Americans (one of them a Jewish intellectual) and a large French contingent…

"More than courageous, [Ahmadinejad's] conduct is heroic. The man and his people, cruelly affected by the West's blockade, aspire only to peace. It is absurd to claim that Iran would take the initiative of launching atomic bombs or any other bombs on the State of Israel, since inevitably those bombs would kill and maim as many Muslims and Christians as Jews…

"If there is nonetheless a bomb that Ahmadinejad will not hesitate to use, it is the one I have called 'the poor man's atomic bomb,' the bomb of revisionism which, killing or maiming no one, will get the better of a huge imposture, – that of 'the Holocaust' or 'Shoa' – which, for its part, serves to justify ad infinitum new wars and new crusades. Too many minds in the Western world remain conditioned by the 'Holocaust Industry' and 'Shoa-business' but, thanks to revisionism, recovery is possible and, by the same token, peace could once again have some chance."

Blanrue has published a book titled Sarkozy, Israël et les Juifs, which was translated into Arabic and Farsi, in which he aims to show that Sarkozy, whom he depicts as unconditionally pro-Zionist, promoted Israeli interests at the expense of those of France. (End quote)

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Here is a link to Michael Hoffman’s review of Deborah Feldman’s highly controversial new book on Hasidic Judaism, which is under heavy attack by an organized lynch mob who greatly fear the extent to which her testimony could shatter the media’s propaganda glorification of Hasidic Judaism (such as Oprah Winfrey recently engaged in):

"Gentiles are wholly evil. They spiritually pollute the world"

Michael Hoffman's Note: Talmud teacher Mayer Schiller is one of Orthodox Judaism's most successful infiltrators of both the American right-wing, including American Renaissance, and the Roman Catholic Fatima movement led by Fr. Nicholas Gruner. Rabbi Schiller is a member and leading spokesman for the racist anti-goyimite Skver Hasidim of New York which, as the following documentation from the book Yalkut Shaiylos u’Teshuvos (endorsed by the Grand Rabbi of Skver) attests, adhere to the rabbinic dogma that all gentiles are irredeemably evil. Rabbi Schiller's virtuoso writing and speaking engagements in right wing circles are partly responsible for the widespread dissemination of the delusional notion that Talmudic Orthodox Judaism is a sincere ally of Christian conservatives and the pro-life "Family values" movement.

Here are the master race teachings of hatred imparted to the youth of Rabbi Mayer Schiller's Skver Hasidic sect:

Exclusive: Hate All Non-Jews, Skvere Rabbis Say

A recently published book written by a Skvere hasidic rabbi and endorsed by the Skvere Rebbe himself tells Skvere hasidim and other Jews to hate all gentiles. Gentiles are wholly evil, the book says. They spiritually pollute the world, and even looking at their faces is harmful.

The book is called Yalkut Shaiylos u'Teshuvos. As the title indicates, it is a collection of questions and answers on halakhic (legal) topics. The questions were asked by young Skvere yeshiva students in New Square, New York. The answers are rabbinic.

The section translated below is titled, "Goyyim" and it explains the Skvere hasidic view of non-Jews, citing among other sources, the Skvere Rebbe himself.

The anti-gentile hatred is based on rabbinic sources. Those sources are heavily influenced by kabbalah and by hasidic thought.

A similar attitude toward non-Jews can be found in the Tanya, the so-called bible of Chabad hasidic thought written by the first rebbe of Chabad, Schneur Zalman of Liadi, and reprinted thousands of times by Chabad worldwide.

The translation was made by the noted filmmaker Menachem Daum, who sent it to me along with the scans of the book posted below and requested that I post it.

All remarks in square brackets [ ] are Daum's. All remarks in these brackets { } are Failed Messiah's. All text within normal parenthesis ( ) are the book's author's.

Question: Is it appropriate to not love, or to hate, a gentile?

Answer: A Jew is intrinsically good. A Jew is a part of God above. Even if at times he strays it is not because he has become evil. It is only that there is evil within him that he has to cleanse.

However, to separate with a million degrees of separation, a gentile is an impure thing. The entire essence of the gentile is evil and impure. Even if he occasionally does good deeds he does not thereby become good. As the Holy Light of Life {i.e., the author of the book Ohr HaHayyim] says regarding gentiles, even such a one who is very careful in his actions does not obtain any degree of holiness thereby.

As is also well known, even educated gentiles who guarded themselves because of their clear understanding of what is right, nonetheless failed when they were tested, because a gentile has no power for goodness within him.

On the contrary, the evil thoughts of gentiles contaminate the world’s atmosphere and create ordeals for Jewish children. As the Remnant for Pinchos {i.e., the author of the book Sheairit L’Pinchas} says, the thoughts of gentiles, even when they are dead, still linger in and contaminate the atmosphere.

He says that to be protected from this there is only one solution; to completely despise the thoughts of gentiles and to realize that all their thoughts are only evil. (Hate doesn’t mean wanting to do something to a gentile, but it means not being able to tolerate him, not being able to stand him, because of his great impurity, especially when one realizes how harmful this {impurity} is {to Jews and to the world}.) Understandably, loving a gentile is the exact opposite of this.

The Holy Light of Life {i.e., the author of the book Ohr HaHayyim} says that for a person to be totally protected from evil he must hate the thing that has caused him to sin. This is why God commanded to uproot the trees of Midian. Since the Midianites caused the Jews to sin with the Peor idol, so therefore Jews must hate everything connected to Midian. Consequently, gentiles, whose thoughts bring upon us ordeals, may be hated.

So also the Holy Light of Life {i.e., the author of the book Ohr HaHayyim} writes, in the portion of Vayigash {in his book entitled Oh HaHayyim}, that the nature of the righteous ones is to hate gentiles.

Speaking of gentiles it is worth mentioning two points. First, with respect to conversing with a gentile: a gentile is impure, as we have mentioned, and he defiles one who speaks to him and this brings evil upon a person. (Except when one is forced to do so because then, as is explained by the Enlightener of the Eyes {i.e., the author of the book Me’or Eynayim}, we thereby extract the little bit of good which has fallen into the gentile, since everything in the world is a mixture of evil and good.)

Especially if one converses with friendship, because the texts tell us that when two people speak with affection then a portion of each one’s soul becomes connected to the other and no one wants to become connected to a gentile, God forbid. (Understandably, when one must converse one must do so like a human being. However, in his heart one should not love him. And it is worth knowing that “it is a well-known law that Esau [the gentile] hates Jacob [the Jew].” The gentile hates you. It is only because of his ulterior motives that he is talking in a friendly manner, because it is in his best interests to do so at this moment, because of his job or for tens of others reasons. Even the righteous gentiles among the nations are often so because they hate inhumanity and murder but not because they love Jews.)

The second point is; one is not to concentrate on the face of a gentile. As the Willows of the Valley {the author of the book Arvei Nahal} writes on the Talmudic passage, “it is forbidden to look upon the face of an evildoer”, because the other side [the devil] {the sitra achra} cloaks himself in the guise of an evildoer and it is a danger to look at him. This passage refers to a Jew who has, God forbid, become an evildoer. Certainly, beyond any doubt, a gentile whose whole nature is essentially evil, looking at his appearance is defiling.

In the Abbreviated Set Table {Kitzur Shulkhan Arukh} it states that if one sees beautiful creatures, even a gentile, one makes a blessing. The Abbreviated Set Table {Kitzur Shulkhan Arukh}adds this is only if one caught a casual glimpse, however concentrating on a gentile is forbidden.

Once, in middle of the night, The Perfumed Bed {the author of the book Arugot Haboshem} sent a messenger to his son, the Jacob Speaks {i.e., the author of the book Vayagid Yaakov}, requesting he should immediately come over. He quickly came running and the Perfumed Bed {the author of the book Arugot Haboshem} looked upon him and told him he can now leave. He only called upon him since a gentile doctor was there earlier and he didn’t want that the last thing he sees before he sleeps to be a gentile, so he called him only to take a look at him.

Our Honorable Holy Teacher, Our Master, Our Guide, Our Rebbe [of Skver], may he live a long and good life, repeated in the name of the Maharal that gentiles are referred to as “wicked waters” while Jews are akin to fire. Naturally, when fire and water mix the water extinguishes the fire. However, when there is an iron barrier between them, for example, water in a pot, then on the contrary, the fire cooks and evaporates the water. Similarly, if one has connections to a gentile the gentile can, God forbid, extinguish the fire in the soul. However, if one is separated in all matters then the Jewish soul will triumph.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Deconstructing a Mossad dirty tricks campaign and how the media spin it

Editor's note: Some important hints are dropped in this New York Times blog report, beginning with its revealing title. In the corpus of the article we have highlighted in boldface the passages which cumulatively constitute aTwilight Language revelation. See our Afterword (below). --Michael Hoffman

LONDON — In war, truth is proverbially the first casualty. The maxim also holds true for shadow wars, like the one currently being waged between Iran and its enemies.

Anyone trying to make sense of the escalating tensions over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions is faced with a bewildering array of claims and counter-claims, none of which would it be wise to take at face value.

This week saw Iran and Israel accusing each other of mounting bomb attacks in three countries — India, Georgia and Thailand — that were aimed at Israeli targets.

The identity of the victims and intended victims establishes one element of a strong prima facie case against Iran: motive. It is logical to assume Iran was striking back for a series of assassinations of its nuclear scientists and unexplained explosions at military facilities, which Tehran has blamed on the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad.

The nub of Iranian allegations after this week’s attacks abroad is that Mossad was prepared to put its fellow citizens in harm’s way in order to damage Tehran’s relations with the friendly governments of the countries where the bombings took place.

Mr. Mehmanparast’s allegations of a Mossad dirty tricks campaign were somewhat undermined when Thai authorities identified two arrested suspects as Iranians. A third Iranian man was detained in Malaysia and a female Iranian suspect was being sought. Thai police said the group’s intended targets were Israeli diplomats.

Mr. Mehmanparast will be placed in a quandary if investigations in Thailand link the suspects directly to Iranian intelligence. The only logical way to maintain the charge of Israeli responsibility then would be to assert that Mossad had somehow duped the Iranians into mounting a series of bombing operations only to have Iranian involvement exposed.

It is far-fetched, but not impossible. As every reader of the spy novels of John le Carré or Robert Ludlum knows, the machinations and motivations of undercover warriors are never straightforward. Some decades ago, Mossad set up a Palestinian “terrorist” in a London flat as part of some nefarious black op, according to former British officials familiar with the case. The Israeli agency’s failure to inform their British counterparts put relations between the two services into deep freeze for years. Spies are not above deceiving one another, even when they are ostensibly on the same side.

In the recent chain of events, however, it is difficult not to reach the conclusion presented by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, that either Iran or its Lebanese ally Hezbollah was responsible. As my colleagues Scott Shane and Robert F. Worth write, the latest outrages fit into a pattern of aggressive behavior by an Iranian regime under pressure.

As for Hezbollah, its leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah contradicted received Western wisdom this month by saying Tehran would not ask his movement to do anything if Iran were attacked. Hezbollah, for its part, would have to sit and think about it.

What was his game? Was he warning Iran it would be on its own? If so, why the public statement rather than a private message? Was it a trick to put their mutual enemies off the scent? In the shady undercover war, you might need a John le Carré to decipher the answer.

Hoffman's Afterword:

Harvey Morris of the New York Times opines that it is "logical" to assume and a "prima facie" case can be made that Iran was behind the Asian bombings because it wanted revenge for bombings in Tehran by Mossad. Au contraire, there is nothing "logical" in attacking nations that are Iran's allies like India, or a supplier, like Thailand.

Equally obtuse is the claim by Morris that "... allegations of a Mossad dirty tricks campaign were somewhat undermined when Thai authorities identified two arrested suspects as Iranians."

Morris never heard of patsies? Can he really believe that Mossad operations are only perpetrated by Israelis carrying Israeli passports and with a "Star of David" pinned on their back?

False flag operations use foreign nationals; that's axiomatic. Morris pretends he isn't aware of that. But wait -- he is aware of it! -- he admits that "decades ago" the Israelis "set up" a "Palestinian" in London as part of a "black op." He just can't believe they'd do anything like that in Thailand. Ha.

Morris: "...it is difficult not to reach the conclusion presented by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, that either Iran or its Lebanese ally Hezbollah was responsible."

Now the picture is becoming a little clearer. The media up to this point in the Asian "Iranian" bombings story have been presenting a simplistic black hats/white hats dichotomy of terror in which Israeli secret services play fair and act like Boy Scouts, while the Iranians are behind most every wickedness in the world. This tale has obviously failed to gain believers. To maintain the media's credibility, Morris penned his blog with Revelation-of-the-Method hints sprinkled throughout a report wherein he concludes, on specious grounds that undercut the tenor of his own writing, that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who even Sarkozy of France calls a liar, is telling the truth.

The fact is, a case of criminal terror can't be decided on the editorial page or in a blog essay. It takes investigative reporting like that of the late, great Don Bolles of Arizona who specialized in (and was assassinated because of) sticking his ballpoint pen in the darkest corners of the rich and powerful. Mr. Bolles engaged in the type of reporting the television news networks and the print media undertook when the US government was in the hands of Richard Nixon, for whom the Establishment harbored a residual fear, and the Vietnam War was raging. Now that Washington D.C. is firmly in the grip of ZOG (the Zionist Occupation Government), contrarian Leftist frogs have become the government’s handsome prince mouthpieces.

In the preceding piece, Morris departs from the script slightly, with the System's blessing of course, to both affirm and deny the Israeli account of the recent bombings. This paradoxical approach gives the American public a vague and nebulous impression that the media are perhaps not Mossad mouthpieces after all —they are just as puzzled and befuddled as the rest of us.

Morris is assuaging nagging anxieties in the minds of savvy Americans over the "weird coincidence" of India recently agreeing to defy the West's embargo and buy Iranian oil, and then being almost immediately bombed by "Iranian government agents."

To maintain faith in Mossad's cover story, we are supposed to believe that the Iranians are that stupid. Few people outside John Hagee's revival tent are swallowing it, however. Enter the New York Times and their blogger Harvey Morris.

Notice how Mr. Morris concludes his essay not with a rally-round-the-Mossad cheer, but a somewhat spine-tingling repeat of the counter-thread he has weaved throughout his writing: the issue is shady and if we want an "answer" it requires a pattern-detection oracle (John le Carré) to decipher what still is a mystery.

Morris is undercutting his own thesis and signaling that he has not actually reached a conclusion that provides any answers. Talk about the "fog of war," this is the fog of journalism, intended to befuddle, while revealing the extent of our befuddlement and then subtly spicing it with Netanyahu's spin.

When the Times publishes checkerboard material like this, it's an indication that the Israelis have not yet convinced the American people of their innocence.

That fact, in turn, signals that independent Internet journalists with high audience numbers should strike now in order to crack the facade and cast further doubt on Mossad and the truthfulness of "our ally Israel," by publishing reports such as we put together for your benefit earlier this week — Those "Iranian" Bombings (read it here).

Speaking of which, if you are benefiting from our analysis, how about giving something in return? If you haven't donated in the past three months consider doing so today, via Paypal to: rarebooks14[at]mac[dot]com -- or click here. Or buy a book, newsletter or recording here.

We are living in interesting times. The big question is whether we can summon the will power, organization and wisdom to rise to the challenge our adversaries have put before us.

Michael Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York Bureau of the Associated Press. He has investigated the Double Initial murders in Rochester, N.Y.; the Son of Sam killings in New York City; the Unabomber in Montana and the role of actor Woody Harrelson's father, Charles, in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Many of these cases and others Hoffman has reported are recounted in his book, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare. He publishes a hard copy bi-monthly newsletter. His latest book is Judaism's Strange Gods, published in October. His next book,if funds become available,is a Christian history of the rise of the Money Power in the West -- "Usury: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now Is Not."

Rabbi David Greenstein of Congregation Shomrei Emunah, a Conservative congregation in Montclair, New Jersey, compared opponents of gay marriage to inhabitants of Sodom. "The real sin of Sodom," he said, citing the Talmud, is "to be opposed to someone deriving a benefit where their derivation of benefit causes no harm. People opposed to this bill are the true Sodomites."

The media are complicit by reporting the bombings in India and Thailand according to the American/Israeli script, rather than stating the fact that the Mossad is an organization known to have mastered false flag "black ops," and then launching an investigation into the likelihood that the recent attacks attributed to Iran are the work of the CIA and/or the Mossad.

The psychological warfare includes constantly maintaining the American people in a pressure cooker of extreme anxiety over the likelihood of an imminent terror attack by supposed Iranian agents operating in the U.S.

This dose of ludicrous fear-mongering comes in the form of a nearly half-page editorial in the Wall Street Journal titled, “The Iranian Threat to New York City.” Like 9 years ago with Iraq, the media drums of war are again beating, this time for destroying the Iranian nation based on false flag bombs planted by the Mossad and CIA and blamed on Iran.

The author, Mitchell D. Silber, the New York City Police Department’s chief of intelligence, writes the following gibberish: “As the West’s conflict with Iran over its nuclear program heats up, New York City — with its large Jewish population — becomes an increasingly attractive target.” This rhetoric is almost identical to Zionist propaganda in the New York Times ten years ago asserting a “mushroom cloud” over the U.S. if we didn’t stop Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Silber does not tell his frightened Wall Street Journal readers that Iran’s own Judaic community, which is entirely at the mercy of the government, lives in comfort and safety. Silber is giving advance cues to the American people so that if Mossad plants a bomb in a Judaic neighborhood in New York, the public will immediately surmise, “Iran’s behind it!” This is lynch mob thinking which the Wall Street Journal ought to denounce rather than enhance.

Record of Terror by U.S. and Israelis Dwarf Alleged Acts by Iran

Harvard University Prof. Steven M. Walt observes: "...two very capable states -- the United States and Israel -- threatening to attack a country that hardly seems worth the effort. The U.S. and Israel together spend more than $700 billion each year on their national security establishments; Iran spends about $10 billion. The U.S. and Israel have the most advanced military hardware in the world; Iran's weapons are mostly outdated and lack spare parts. The U.S. and Israeli militaries are well-educated and very well-trained; not true of Iran.

"The United States has thousands of nuclear weapons and Israel has several hundred, while Iran has a vast arsenal of -- zero. Iran does have a nuclear enrichment program (which is the reason for all the war talk), but the most recent National Intelligence Estimates have concluded that Iran does not presently have an active nuclear weapons program.

"The United States has several dozen military bases in Iran's immediate vicinity; Iran has exactly none in the Western hemisphere. The United States has powerful allies in every corner of the world; Iran's friends include a handful of minor nonstate actors like Hezbollah or minor-league potentates like Bashar al Assad (who's not looking like an asset these days) or Hugo Chávez.

"Moreover, the United States has fought four wars since 1990. It has bombed, invaded or occupied a half dozen countries in that period, leading to the deaths of thousands of people.

As Prof. Walt points out, the United States and Europe are not actually threatened by Iran, even as we terrorize the Iranians with crippling sanctions, sabotage of their infrastructure and assassination of their scientists. All of these acts are, as Rep. Ron Paul has stated, acts of war.

Iran does threaten the status quo in two areas: in Palestine, where the rest of the world, including the Arab world, are sunk in complacency concerning the periodic masacres which the Israelis inflict and the ongoing theft and occupation of Palestinian land; and in countries such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia which viciously repress Shiite populations. In Bahrain the Shia are a majority tyrannized by a Sunni minority.

Neither situation is any of our business. We should be sending medical and humanitarian aid and goodwill and cultural ambassadors to all sides in the Middle East, and otherwise taking a hands off approach to these never-ending religious wars which are none of our affair, especially in view of our "budget deficit."

Thanks to a Zionist-dominated American media however, and church leaders who teach that contemporary Israelis are genetic descendants of Abraham and the Israeli state is a Biblical (rather than a Talmudic) nation, we have a U.S. Congress which is Israeli-occupied territory.

Not all the fault is with the Traditional Enemies of Truth. For the past thirty years the Iranians and Syrians have done almost nothing to cultivate influence over the propagation and marketing of news and information in the United States. As a result of their neglect, quite naturally their enemies have obtained a monopoly on reporting conflicts to the American people.

In a speech by then President George W. Bush of October 7, 2002, Bush cited alleged Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear programs - as well as concerns about possible Iraqi connections to international terrorist groups. With respect to how close Iraq was to developing a nuclear weapon, Bush said that "we don't know exactly." He went on to state that "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."

In the face of requests that the U.S. provide further evidence in support of its position that Iraq was failing to comply with U.N. resolution 1441 and that a resort to military force would be necessary unless Iraq's behavior changed, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003. The bulk of Powell's remarks involved his presentation of "additional information about what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as well as Iraq's involvement with Al Qaeda associates. In his February 5 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell charged that Iraq had begun constructing mobile facilities to produce biological weapons.

On September 8, 2002, the New York Times published a front page article by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction which was one of the most serious cases of misreporting in the entire run-up to the war. The piece provided a major boost to the administration’s case for war and proved to be wrong in almost every detail.

Michael Massing writes: "It was the prospect of Saddam Hussein’s getting an atomic bomb that caused the most fear about his regime, and it was this fear that the Bush administration most sought to fan as it pushed the case for war. Yet it had little concrete evidence to show that Iraq was actively seeking a bomb. Enter the New York Times. In that September 8 story, Gordon and Miller, leaning heavily on Bush officials, offered the aluminum tubes as evidence that Iraq was actively seeking a nuclear weapon. The article did not simply raise this as a possibility — it asserted it in bold and unequivocal language. 'US Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts' ran the headline. Iraq, the lead declared, 'has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today."

Another New York Times report by government mouthpieces Gordon and Miller, published on Sept. 13 was heavily slanted to the CIA’s position. It iced out critics of the claims that Iraq was trying to gain nuclear weapons and insulted the critics, trivializing and dismising them. Prior to Sept. 13 David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security warned Judith Miller concerning her support for CIA claims. He states: "...an administration official was quoted as saying that 'the best' technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessment. These inaccuracies made their way into the story despite several discussions that I had with Miller on the day before the story appeared — some well into the night. In the end, nobody was quoted questioning the CIA’s position, as I would have expected."

Massing notes "...the Times‘s heavy reliance on official sources and its dismissal of other sources...on the critical issue of whether Iraq was actively seeking a nuclear bomb, the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA) had found strong indications that it was not. And how did the Times cover these key statements? With two short, pro forma stories buried inside the A section...The Times ran three front-page stories on Colin Powell's speech to the U.N. Security Council speech, one by Michael Gordon...Gordon offered unqualified praise for Powell's assertions about Iraq’s WMD. 'The case Mr. Powell presented today regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction' was 'remorseless,' Gordon wrote. “Even the skeptics,” he added, 'had to concede that Mr. Powell’s presentation had been an important milestone in the debate. Critics may try to challenge the strength of the administration’s case and they will no doubt argue that inspectors be given more time. But it will be difficult for the skeptics to argue that Washington’s case against Iraq is based on groundless suspicions and not intelligence information.'

"On the nuclear issue, Gordon wrote, Powell 'presented new details to buttress the administration’s case;' in particular, he cited Powell’s claim that the United States 'has intercepted aluminum tubes that had a special coating that would make them useful for making centrifuges to enrich uranium.' Remarkably, Gordon did not see fit to mention the IAEA findings that undermined this claim and that he, Gordon, had twice written about in the previous month. So, at this key juncture in the debate on Iraq, Gordon uncritically transmitted a key US claim, one that the inspectors had effectively discredited. In the light of such reporting, is it any surprise that the IAEA findings had such limited impact?"

Doomed to repeat ruinous scripts from past wars

The American people continue to maintain faith in the credibility of the corporate media and as a result of this willful gullibility, they are on a nightmarish merry-go-round, doomed to repeat ruinous scripts from past wars like the war with Iraq, which was fought on the basis of a barrel of (now forgotten) lies about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi tries to Al Qaeda.

Any armed resistance against Israeli occupation on the part of national liberation organizations such as Hezbollah, which years ago liberated the El Khiam concentration camp in Lebanon from the control of the Israeli proxies who ran that hellhole, is considered "terrorism." In the eyes of the West the sacred nation of fraudsters who deceitfully call themselves "Israel" cannot be opposed by force of arms. Shiite Islam views the Israelis as Nazis and uses the same tactics against them which the much hallowed partisans of World War Two employed against the Germans.

America's Talmudic mentality will not entertain the analogy however: bombing German Nazis is considered heroic; bombing Israeli Nazis is regarded as the lowest form of demonic evil. Unfortunately for the Zionist occupiers of the U.S. government and media, much of the rest of the world doesn't buy this Talmudic double-standard.

We doubt that the recent spate of bombings on the doorstep of China and Russia, and in India's backyard, will be viewed by the governments of those nations as Iranian in origin.

What a coincidence that the three nations most sympathetic to Iran are suddenly experiencing "Iranian" bombings within or near their territory.